Responding to NIH Grant Reviews
Christopher J. Hernandez, Ph.D.Associate Professor
Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Cornell University
Adjunct Assistant Scientist, Hospital for Special Surgery
Cornell –HSSProgram in Biomechanics
hernandezresearch.com
Hernandez Grant Writing Strategy
• Get Grant If I don’t get grant:
• Get Useful Criticisms• Fewer criticisms more likely to get grant• Make problems hard to find
• Writing Clarity: Provide good conceptual model & overview, reviewers can’t confuse what you propose
Grant Writing Style
Ogden and Goldberg
Mentors
Think Like A Reviewer
• Wants to Minimize Time Spent Reviewing
• Professional Scientist• Does not know your work as well as you• Follows “Guidelines for Reviewers”
• Will not mention all errors, only enough to justify score
What to Do When you Get Summary Statement
• Read• Wait until you are no longer angry• Highlight all Negative Criticisms• Order Criticisms by Importance• Identify Criticisms that Need More Data• Identify Criticisms that just need
Rewording
• Failure By Author–Fatal Flaw Elsewhere in Grant, no need to
play close attention elsewhere
• Is the grant in the right study section?
Critique 2:
Preparing Introduction
• Quote Each Criticism• Respond with:
– New Preliminary Data– Make Recommended Changes– Citations of Work by Others Supporting your Point
• Do Not:– Say reviewer is wrong / didn’t read grant– Point out errors by reviewer– Make arguments without support from citations/prelim data
Revision Scoring
• NIH Study Sections Do Not Like to Give a Worse Score to a Responsive Resubmission– Does not mean your score will get good enough for
funding
• Common Reason For Small Score Improvement– Conceptual Model Limited– New Material is Flawed– Long-term Utility of Work is Limited